Northern Light?

Watching from the side-lines of the Labour leadership contest it seems that, so far, very few big ideas have been declared by our four candidates. Of course, the tabloid caricatures have been cast: from so-called Looney Left to so-called Blairite Revisionist. Meanwhile we wait for something to happen.

But the reality is that so much is up for grabs. Will we move back to the Centre? Will we return to the comfort of Blairism or continue the more radical critique of Miliband and beyond? How will we reconnect with the electorate of Middle England whom it seems we failed to persuade in the General Election? How on earth will we come back from the debacle of the Scottish result soon enough to perform well in next year’s Holyrood election? The political landscape has changed. And we somehow have to chart a course through it over the next five years.

Perhaps the first step in determining our direction of travel is to work out where we’re starting from. One of the most instructive articles prior to the election was by Paul Mason. He argued that the country is now dominated by three groups; ‘Scandi-Scotland’, the asset-rich south east and post-industrial Britain. He argued that the Scots, south-eastern England and the post-industrial North and Wales are now living out conflicting narratives. The danger for the Labour Party is that while Blairism recognised this trend and adapted to it, winning seats in the south, we were wrong to assume that post-industrial Britain and Scotland would come along for the ride.

Mason also points out that the SNP and the Tories have captured the zeitgeist of their heartlands well. Labour has not, ceding votes to Ukip, the SNP and the Tories. The upshot is the loss of Scotland to the SNP, the loss of the South East to the supposedly more aspiration-friendly Tories, and the huge increase in the Ukip vote in the North. If Ukip were as good at politics as the SNP would Labour have lost more seats in the North? Almost certainly. Labour needs to ensure that we don’t miss the writing on the wall: as well as developing a narrative that wins back Blair-era southern voters and reclaiming our place in Scotland, we need to talk about The North.

The long-term status of the North as a Labour heartland cannot be taken for granted. The tribal loyalties and family connections which used to define our presence in the North are waning. It’s arguable that, like the industry which once defined it, Labour’s roots in these communities have loosened. The roots are not gone. But we cannot afford to go any further without tending to them.

True, all is not lost. As accurate as that Maggie Simpson electoral map was, there remains strong support for Labour in the North East, and in urban centres like Sheffield, Liverpool and Manchester. Indeed, in areas like Wearside – first to declare on polling day – incumbents Julie Elliot, Sharon Hodgson and Bridgette Phillipson all increased their majorities considerably. Labour is still the party which can best represent the North. But to do that we will need to both up our game and lobby for changes that will allow the North to flourish again.

Sandwiched between the resurgent nationalisms of Scotland and Wales, pressured by protest votes, underwhelmed by deepening apathy and left behind by the relative affluence of the South East, the North has been taken for granted; not just by Labour but by the country as a whole.

That we have a dysfunctional economy, far too dependent upon London and the South East, is obvious. This imbalance is evidenced in the inequality that we find all over: from the East End of Glasgow to the docks of Sunderland, from the valleys of North Wales and, ironically, to the outskirts of London itself. Our politics also remains heavily-weighted to London with Westminster, and to some degree the London Assembly and the Boris Effect, creating a self-fulfilling gravitational pull for investment. This fact was only partially-acknowledged during the election campaign, even although it affects the whole country.

But crucially, whilst Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have Parliaments and Assemblies to represent their voice and some of the powers needed to stimulate their economies, the North has been left with only local, and not regional, government.

The North has a problem. It has been taken for granted and ignored. But even now the Labour Party remains the best hope for a transformed, empowered and dynamic North. So what should we do?

In Glasgow, to be ‘Clyde-built’ was once a badge of communal pride, something that helped shape the identity of an entire city: it’s now a nostalgic reference to the industrial heritage of ship-building. At one time, the relationship in parts of the country between local education, employers and the wider community was so inter-related as to be inseparable. Even football clubs were part of this eco-system, with teams like The Blades, the Potters, the Cobblers or the Brewers named after the local industries. This socio-economic model is no more. All we have left are traces and disconnected parts. And it’s not just the loss of jobs and consequent wealth of previous generations which leaves a hole, but the dilution of the very sense of identity which many communities found at least in part from the ‘Made in’ stamp.

So what’s the lesson here? Firstly, communal identity can be an important factor in socio-economic success. The community that works together, stays together, it seems, even after most of the work has gone. Secondly, if we are to create the modern equivalent to the old communities centred around local industries and stimulate integrated local economies, focussed on creativity, hard work and shared identity, then more power needs to be held more locally. This is the opposite of the individualistic approach of neo-liberal economics in which each ‘producer’ is a singular widget in a vast economic machine. It’s an alternative to the creeping authoritarianism of the SNP in Scotland or the Conservatives in England.

But we need to go above the level of the immediate town and the Local Authority. It’s the impact of that core Labour ideal – solidarity – which will help the North as a whole find its voice, not just in the UK, but throughout the world.

Politically this puts Labour in a complicated situation. We began devolution but we didn’t see it through, side-tracked by wars and declining radicalism after years in power. The result is a half baked devolution which is itself the cause of some of the tension felt in Wales and the North. Why shouldn’t Wales have the same powers as Scotland, ask Plaid Cymru? Why should the North be ignored or need to resort to ‘take us with you Scotland’ pleas after a Tory victory? George Osborne’s ‘northern powerhouse’ whether real or imagined is clearly intended to begin the decontamination of the Tory brand in the North and to centralise power in the hands of a sprinkling of city Mayors. To oppose it looks like meanness, yet if Labour is to reclaim the strong support of the North we will need to be much bolder than Osborne.

It is too soon to be setting policy for 2020. We have a leader and deputy leader to elect first and a defeat to digest. At the same time we must not cede the North to the Tories or to UKIP. For that to happen we must develop a strong narrative that offers hope to communities too often left behind; the non-voters, UKIP voters and those in Pudsey, Colne Valley, and Keighley that don’t like what Labour had to offer this time round. The offer must give hope to communities which have had little since before Thatcherism, communities New Labour too passed by.

And it has to be about more than devolution; it has to involve power and money. Bad decisions made locally are just as bad as bad decisions made far away. Labour needs to be content with the direction set by the North being different from that of London, the South, Wales or Scotland. This will require ambitious policy and a clear settlement for the other parts of the UK. The risks are real, the rewards – not least for the people of Newcastle, Liverpool, Leeds and Grimsby – are huge.

We end with some tentative suggestions. If power and money are needed in addition to deliberation, any devolution must involve tax raising powers, a demarcated area that is ‘the North’, and the ability to make choices which are different from those of surrounding regions.

We believe that this would be best realised by the creation of a ‘Mayor of the North’, a First Minister of Northern England. This role would have powers and budget akin to the Mayor of London, would be directly-elected every five years in line with Parliamentary Elections, and would be scrutinised by a Northern Assembly comprised by 100 Councillors from the Local Authorities of the North. This new tier of ‘super-Councillors’ would be paid a full-time wage and would split their time between their Local Authority responsibilities and the Northern Assembly.

Assembly Members would be elected by their peers in the Local Authority which would form an Electoral College, itself reflective of the popular vote in each Local Authority election. The Assembly (which would be at least as powerful as the London Assembly), and the Northern First Minister would operate a significant budget garnered from both Central Government and a proportion of Local Government Council Tax receipts and Business Rates. These funds would be used across the range of powers currently devolved to Local Government. But, significantly, the budget could also be allocated to one-off infrastructure or other flagship projects.

There are of course questions to be answered: How would such an Assembly and First Minister work in partnership with London, Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh? Where in the North would they be based? What would their exact powers be? How would the relative responsibilities of the Assembly and the councils of the North be integrated? Should this form part of a wider new constitutional settlement that finishes the incomplete devolution of New Labour and that benefits other regions?

These questions cannot be answered definitively without some degree of trial and error. But this is nothing to be scared of. These proposals are less dramatic than the waves of devolution the Celtic nations have experienced since 1999, continuing up to this day. And those waves are only moving in one direction.

Our challenge is to continue to outwork our mandate as the unity party; the party which transcends nationalism, authoritarianism, narrow sectionalism and self-interest, and which instead cultivates flourishing, confident communities that are rooted in social justice. To achieve that we have to do something that political parties don’t like to do with power: we have to give it away.

Musings from the Island Line

Riding the Hong Kong Metro Island Line train on a Saturday morning in full kilt and associated Highland paraphernalia was certainly one way to get noticed. Ordinarily, the incongruity of being a six-foot, three- inch tall white guy in a skirt amongst a throng of generally-shorter Chinese commuters would be enough to make me feel like I was standing out from the crowd. But it was the terribly polite, subtle-yet-noticeable way in which my fellow travellers took selfies with me on their iPhones that really made me feel like I was doing the Tuesday morning School-run in a mankini.

Never have I felt more self-conscious in my identity as a Scotsman abroad. Despite the fact that the travel involved in my day job gives me call to perform the role of ‘conspicuous foreigner’ amongst the otherwise tranquil daily routine of Ethiopians, Argentineans, Cambodians and Ugandans, my journey on the MTR (Sheung Wan direction) occupies a category of its own.

And yet it was a good feeling: good to be identified as a Scotsman abroad (No’ Awa’ Tae’ Bide Awa’ and all that); good to be associated again with the generally-positive views of Scots and interest in Scotland which I often encounter on my travels. It seems that, even in a former colonial toe-hold like Hong Kong, we Scots somehow manage to get a pass on the negative legacy of the British Empire – the nasty bits – and are instead awarded epithets like ‘plucky’, ‘industrious’ or just ‘drunk’.

Since the Hong Kong wedding (there was a reason I was riding the MTR in full regalia), I’ve been musing on the parallels between the status of Hong Kong in China and the status of Scotland in Great Britain. Without wanting to overstretch the analogy, it seems that both represent distinct cultures (in the case of Scotland, a nation) which are to all intents and purposes – economic, historic, social, linguistic, political – grafted onto the larger culture against which they are juxtaposed.

Yet in one key aspect Hong Kongers and Scots seem to diverge: namely their views towards their respective constitutional settlements. Hong Kongers are culturally Chinese by majority, yet since the1997 handover have tended to see full political union within China as less than expedient. Scots meanwhile are culturally Scottish by majority, yet since devolution in 1999 have tended to see retaining full political union with the other nations in the United Kingdom as preferable.

So why do most Scots seem in poll after poll to hold their identity as Scots in happy tension with their British passports? It boils down to the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism.

Nationalism is a sectional interest defining nations in exclusive and regressive terms: we are us because we are not them. It’s a dangerous foundation on which to base a political project. And we have seen this in the way that the Scottish National Party and the Vote Yes Campaign have articulated their vision for Scotland’s future.

Their core message is essentially a version of libertarian individualism. The Nationalist myth tells us that it’s the means to the end which are most important: secure self-determination and all else will fall into place. Nationalism is the cure, and Independence is the pill.

Patriotism is different. A Patriot loves her country. She is proud of it, wants to represent her fellow countrymen and their values well, is assured of her identity, is generous in its definition and is outward-looking. She wants her nation to be recognised in the world, but her Patriotism does not dictate her view on the particular constitutional settlement by which her nation is governed.

I believe that many Scots feel like they should vote Yes because they are essentially Patriotic. They are drawn to the grand claims and romantic language which Nationalism uses. But I have a message for my fellow Scots: it’s ok to vote No. You won’t lose your identity, and you’re no less a Scot than those who plan to vote Yes. Moreover, it’s a fundamentally wise decision to choose to maintain our Union with Wales, England and Northern Ireland. And here’s why.

Observers of American politics will be familiar with an axiomatic phrase which was drummed into the Democratic Party campaign team who were fighting to win the Presidential election for Bill Clinton in 1992. It’s this phrase – slightly-adjusted – that those of us who believe in the Union must keep in mind: it’s not the economy stupid.

Because the decision about what country we’ll be citizens of in the near future, of how we will share this small group of islands in the Atlantic Ocean, is too important to be decided by simply following the money.

Yet the economic issue seems to dominate the debate time and again. Will Scotland be better off financially in or out of the Union? I’ve seen statistics which seem to answer the question in both the affirmative and the negative. And I tend to think we would be slightly worse off financially in an independent Scotland. But even if we could speak with certainty on the economic impact of Independence, we should still avoid the economic argument in defence of the No vote. If I know one thing it’s this: never rile a Scotsman by telling him that he isn’t capable of doing something under his own steam.

And there are other ways to measure the value of the Union. Our shared language, in all its glorious forms, enables us to go anywhere in the United Kingdom and be understood. Our shared values mean that a Glaswegian has more in common with a Liverpudlian than a Parisian. Our shared history, at least over the last 300 years, means that we have a common story. Our shared geography means that we cannot simply ignore the reality that we share a small island (look at it on an atlas) with limited resources in a rapidly globalising world. We need to pool the resources for the benefit of all in these islands.

In particular, our shared relationships mean we are more than just neighbours, and in this respect I declare an interest. I am a Scot, married to an Englishwoman, with a daughter who was born in Belfast and a son who was born in Sunderland. This pattern repeats itself ad infinitum across our island. And it’s not a recent phenomenon either. My grandfather was also born in Belfast, to Scottish parents. He grew up in Southampton, settled in Liverpool and married a Scot. We are a family on this island – literal and metaphorical – and despite SNP claims that independence wouldn’t undermine this, I believe it would introduce a massive psychological and emotional wedge between us, an inevitable drifting-apart which benefits no-one. Independence is not a house move, it is a divorce, and I worry about what would happen to the kids.

How do these claims differ from the Nationalism which calls the Scots family to create a Nation-State? First, the United Kingdom is not a nation. It’s a voluntary arrangement of shared government between multiple nations. There is no such thing as the British Nation, but there is a British State. The UK eschews the narrow reductionism of nation and embraces an expansive vision of union. The irony of the SNP argument is that they want Scotland to secede from the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in order to join the European Union as an independent nation! This is a massive blind spot in their reasoning. When the world is requiring increasing integration the SNP are seeking disintegration.

And don’t be fooled by the rationale which claims independence can be a tartan ejector seat from Tory government. It’s not a coincidence that the SNP have risen to power in Scotland under first a Blairite British Government and then a Conservative-led coalition in Westminster. Scots as a whole tend to be traditionally orientated towards left-leaning politics. However, trying to solve the problem of the drift to the Right in British politics through the method of Scottish independence is using a sledge hammer to crack a nut. We’ve got to believe that a new engagement in politics by the electorate can actually make a difference to who’s in charge and what their policies will be. It’s voter apathy that’s been the real harbinger of Tory Doom, not political activism, and claiming that the only way to save UK politics is through the disassembly of UK politics is a skewed logic indeed.

So if you’re a patriot living in Scotland, if you want the British family to flourish in all its diversity, if you value unity and integration over narrow Nationalism, if you want all of us who share this island to become greater than the sum of our parts, and if you’ve got a vote in next year’s referendum, please, do us all a favour and vote No.